campaignsfandomcom-20200223-history
Forum talk:What is the best form of government?
Is single-party state really democratic? It seems more oligarchic to me. Jfing[[Wikipedia:User:Jfingers88/Esperanza|'e']]rs88 17:49, 29 August 2006 (UTC) :A single-party state would technically be democratic as long as the law doesn't prohibit the emergence of a competing party. If a single-party dominates thanks to the structure of government, then it'd be an oligarchy, I suppose. If a single party dominates solely because no other party has been able to challenge it sufficiently in a fair election, then it's still a democracy. Otherwise America would be an oligarchy and surely that's not true! :Also, would I be allowed to include anarchy in this list? I know it's kind of an oxymoron, but only in the 'The only rule is there are no rules' type of way. Tell me what you think. -- Ferguson 23:24, 29 September 2006 (UTC) ::I say yes. Be bold. --whosawhatsis? 23:41, 29 September 2006 (UTC) Theocracy I'm going to have to question the change in the definition of 'theocracy.' I gathered that, because there are quotes around the definitions, these definitions are stating what the words literally (or close to literally) mean. While practically theocracies aren't really ruled by 'God(s)', democracies aren't practically ruled by 'the people,' either. I would say we either need to take the quotes off the definition of theocracy, or keep it 'rule by God,' which is what the term literally means. -- Ferguson 22:24, 2 October 2006 (UTC) :The Oxford American dictionary defines theocracy as "a system of government in which priests rule in the name of God or a god," and of all of the other definitions I found, other than that from Easton's 1897 Bible Dictionary, those that mention the "rule by deity" definition also include the "rule by religious leaders in the name of their deity" definition. About half of the definitions omitted the former entirely. The latter definition is also the only one that's accurate of any of the governments claiming to be theocracies, at least that exist today. --whosawhatsis? 23:38, 2 October 2006 (UTC) a Theo-crat's Response Thank you for questioning the definition of theocracy. As a self-avowed "theo-cratic" Republican, here are my thoughts: First, the United States of America, by definition, is a Constitutional Republic, grounded in representative (not direct) Democratic Rule, that has congealed in the modern era around the two Ruling Parties of the Democratic Party and the Republican Party. Second, a Theocratic Vision of Government is shared by many within the Republic itself, i.e. practicing Roman Catholics, Evangelical Protestants and occasionally some conservative Jews (e.g. Mark Klein, M.D., a Republican Presidential Hopeful for 2008 who privately views his enterprise as nothing other than walking in the faith of Abraham to restore American Family Life and Financial Viability). Additionally, while in attendance at the Leadership Institute's Political Training in Washington D.C., not only were Evangelical Books and numerous Bibles widely available, but we even prayed together as political conservatives, united even across National boundaries (e.g. praying with Campaign Staff of Canadian Parliamentarian Candidates). Therefore, the "form" of American Government (or of Canadian or of Spanish, et al) can still be a Constitutional Republic, while still being "infused" with Theo-cratic Christian Guiding Principles. Concerns such as Care for the Poor, extension of Relief Services to Third World Countries, etc. come out of our Nation's Judeo-Christian moral heritage and as such, should be embraced by ALL sides of the political spectrum, regardless of one's interpretation of the "separation of Church and State" clause (I personally interpret such a clause as barring only the establishment of state churches such as the Church of England or German or Scandinavian Lutheranism, but allowing for robust Judeo-Christian LAW, moral bearings, etc). Finally, you are right to question such a definition of Theo-cracy, usually misunderstood by the Political Left and sometimes mis-appropriated by the Political Right (e.g. American flag crosses, which I have actually seen on sale at Christian book and jewelry distributors!). Yours in Service of Jesus Christ and the American Republic, --RobJKing 22:12, 2 January 2007 (UTC)RobJKing 22:05, 2 January 2007 (UTC)Rob J King, Republican Political Voice :What principles of governance are you referring to, and how would they be implemented? Chadlupkes 22:19, 2 January 2007 (UTC) ::(edit conflict) Just because a government can implement moral laws and regulations does not necessarily make it a theocracy. Human reason can stand to support philanthropy and aid to the poor without endorsing a specific God or religion, which is pretty much what a theocracy does. ::And don't assume that all practicing Roman Catholics want a "Theocratic Vision of Government." I certainly think it would cause a great deal of harm to have a theocracy in the United States. Jfingers88 23:18, 2 January 2007 (UTC) restoration of law Chad, Excellent Question! I personally think that our system is working quite well, especially compared to the fraud and corruption in other world democracies or the autocratic rule in nations governed by Islamic shariah law. So, no change in the procedures of our FINE Republic in the U.S.A. My main concern is restoring key moral directives within our system of LAW, something that can only come at the grass-roots Congressional level, and literally law by law in order to restore America's Judeo-Christian legal basis for governance. Examples include reforming bankruptcy law to reflect the teachings of debt forgiveness found in the Jewish Torah (compared to other nations such as China, we are still quite gracious in debt-forgiveness, but the Republican Party wrongly swallowed Banking money to unscrupulously "crack down" on bankruptcy filers!). Other examples would be passing stronger anti-perjury laws (i.e. "Thou shalt not bear false witness against thy neighbor!") that would help clean up both divorce/family law (making the burden of proof fall on the petitioner, not the respondent to establish guilt, rather than the innocent having to "establish their innocence"--basically "Innocent until PROVEN guilty.") This will also help clean up frivolous civil litigation (and some criminal litigation) in which desires for the quick $ or for revenge are often prevalent. Again, this will come at a grass-roots level and happen one law or possibly even one local ammendment at a time, but with a restoration of our Nation's Judeo-Christian legal heritage (largely its foundation, along with some Roman sources, obviously). Sincerely, --RobJKing 23:14, 2 January 2007 (UTC)Rob J King, Republican Political Voice